Examination of the Duty of Disclosure of the Transfer of Goren's Hearing Place to Plaintiffs 1-2 by virtue of his being their counsel
In the case of Goren's transfer of the place of hearing, the question of the disclosure of the restitution clause vis-à-vis plaintiffs 1-2 deserves examination not only by virtue of his being the owner of the seller, defendant 4, and the person who manages her affairs (paragraph C of the preamble to the affidavit of the transferee of the Goren place of hearing), but from an additional angle. In other words, the duty to disclose the restitution clause may also arise by virtue of the fact that Goren is the counsel for plaintiffs 1-2, to the extent that this is determined.
We will examine, therefore, whether the transfer of the Goren hearing venue served as counsel for plaintiffs 1-2. On the face of it, in clause 5 of the contract signed between plaintiffs 1-2 and defendant 4, it was stated that "... The buyer confirms that he has been given the opportunity to hire the services of a lawyer to represent him in this transaction, and after consulting with anyone he deems fit to have chosen to represent himself in this transaction and accepts full responsibility of his own free will...". Prima facie, this indicates that Goren represented defendant 4 alone and that plaintiffs 1-2 consciously chose not to be represented. However, the conduct of the parties regarding the drafting of the agreement shows that Goren served as counsel for plaintiffs 1-2 after the transfer of the venue of the hearing. Moving the venue of the Goren hearing drafted the contracts; He undertook to handle all the legal aspects of the transactions between plaintiffs 1-2 and defendant 4, including registration in the Land Registry and reporting to the tax authorities (see paragraph 3 of the contracts; Mr. Attias's interrogation at p. 973, paras. 14-18, and at p. 979, paras. 22-25). It is reasonable to assume that for this purpose, Goren signed the plaintiffs 1-2 on relevant documents in connection with the transactions. Plaintiffs 1-2 were not represented by another lawyer, they placed their trust in the transfer of the Goren hearing venue that he would defend their case, and they placed full confidence in him (Mr. Attias's interrogation at p. 1042, paras. 1-15).